I,
PRIME MINISTERI
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING MP
PRESS CONFERENCE, HANKYU HOTEL, OSAKA, JAPAN
17 NOVEMBER 1995
E& OE PROOF COPY
J: Prime Minister, In the Japanese press today there are suggestions not
only in the Asian press that without the presence of Bill Clinton, it
seemed a very bad signal to just how Important APEC is, and If 1 could
add to that question, in Bogor, yourself, President Clinton and President
Soeharto played a key role In the Leaders Meeting, without, you know, Mr
Clinton on the weekend, Is there a chance that you won't be able to stIffen
the resolve ( InaudIble).. free trade?
PM: Well, obviously, it would be better had President Clinton been able to
come, and I am very disappointed that he can't come. But he has a huge
fiscal crisis a Budget Crisis on In the United States, and the Federal
Government In the United States, In some parts of it, have now ceased to
work for a number of days, so it is obviously a matter of great gravity for
him. It Is true that the President has worked with others myself Included
at now the 2 previous meetings-of APEC. The bIg meeting was the
declaration meeting of Bogor the declaration for free trade by 2010 for
the developed countries, and 2020 for developing countries, and now the
Action Agenda Is under discussion here.-in Osaka. There has been a lot
of commitment by all countries to this Including the United States and
we are moving positively towards what I think will be a very substantial
outcome here In Osaka. So, yes it would help If he was here, but again,
the only thing that I am sure that would keep him away from here is this
kind of crisis.
J: How damaging is it to Australia that while you are here trying to promote
Australian trade, you have got the waterfront effectively being shut down
back home?
PM: Well, what I'm here is trying to promote a future for Australia for the next
half century not the next 5 days. And this is what this is about it's
about Australia's integration with the economic community of the Asia-
Pacific, and It Is very much both a medium and a long-run thing, The
dispute on the waterfront is one that's now had 2-3 years in the making.
And that is, around -this principle that one particular company has had a
religious view that Individual wage contracts are a good thing, and
working under an award Is not, and that they will pay more for a contract
than they will pay under an award. The ACTU and the union movement
want this question of no discrimination you can at least offer working
people a choice. But there is no choice there is no choice at all when
there is much greater emoluments and salaries available under contracts
for the same work. Now, that's the Issue on principle the CRA has been
promoting it now for 2-3 years, and we are seeing the culmination of this
dispute when they put civil actions on the employees. Now, I'm confident
that we can get a resolution on It. The parties are now meeting around
the four principles I alluded to yesterday, and I had an Indication from
both parties yesterday morning the previous evening, in fact that during
yesterday, we would have the matter resolved. Nevertheless, they are
still speaking around the same subjects, and I think that's a very good
sign.
J: So you are saying that the company Is completely to blame for the
present situation?
PM: It wants to bust unionisation of Its sites. That Is, they will pay more in the
first Instance to be rid of the union, and when the unions are gone, each
Individual then has no-one to deal with but the company. Now, this has
always been if you look at the United States a recipe for lower wages.
Unions understand this this is what the antecedents of the dispute are.
What brought it on, was putting the civil actions on. In other words, not
content to have some wins at the sites industrially, they have gone after
the Individuals. That's when the ACTU, of course, were forced to
intervene. But that said, I am pretty sure particularly after my
conversations with Mr Davis from CRA that he wants the dispute settled,
and that the points that were broadly agreed on the evening before I left
for Japan are the ones which will give a resolution of the dispute. Now,
some of those points have been widened, I think, over the course of
yesterday. They are now seeking to get them back to those essential
points.
J: Are you adamant that you won't change the Government's legislation?
PM: It doesn't need to be changed the Government's legislation Is not an
Issue here. It's all about the question whether or not there Is
3
discrimination in offering a proposition to a worker under an Award,
versus [ a worker] under a contract. That's the issue. You see, the people
on the conservative side of the IR agenda in Australia the Liberal Party
in particular say we will give you a choice. Well, there is no choice, if in
fact you get more under the contract and you get less under an award.
People say well, at least they are getting more. Well, in the short term
they will, but in the long term will they? They probably won't.
J: The ACTU says that the legislation allows this to happen, and that it
should be changed.
PM: Yes, but the ACTU is not pressing that point with me. They were not
pressing that point they haven't pressed that point with me.
J: Prime Minister, John Maitland announced a short while ago that the CRA
mines in Queensland would be closing today, and that they are bringing
forward a national stoppage to Sunday. They don't seem to share your
optimism about the resolution of the dispute.
PM: Well, there are two matters here. There is the waterfront stoppage, which
was an action by the whole union movement, which then, of course, then
effects a whole myriad of companies and Individuals across the board In
the country, and then there is the question of CRA Itself. CRA has made
this a site-by-site matter, and they do have mining Interests. And so, what
you are probably seeing Is the CFMEU starting to narrow the dispute to
CRA. But hopefully we'll get beyond all that.
J: Mr Keating, have you spoken to any of the main parties today?
PM: Yes, I have.
J: And that's what gives you hope?
PM: Well, I think that people do want us to get this settled, but it's a matter of
whether... l1 think Ideology Is going to try and fear over common sense, and
I think common sense will always win.
J: What sort of signal do you t hink this sends to the public In the debate
between the Coalition and the Government way
PM: The signal to the public is this would be on In every business across the
country for the rest of time certainly the next half dozen ' years if the
Coalition were to win an election. What you are seeing with CRA Is a
taste of what you will get under a Coalition government.
I
J: Mr Keating, on APEC The agreement that you will be signing on Sunday
allows for flexibility. What is your definition of flexibility, and do you think
it differs from that of some of the Asian countries?
PM: Well, we haven't published a declaration at this point, and we are not In a
position to publish now the large bulk of the communique. But one thing
is clear, I think, and that is that the essence of Bogor is going to be
reflected here. There has been a mighty amount of work put Into this by
at least the Australian Government, by the Government of Japan of
course they have got pr incipal carriage of It by the United States, by all
of the other players in the region. And I think they realise what the
importance of the stakes are here. And that Is, to see that East Asia is
going to be adequately resourced Into the future. That is, to keep growth
going In East Asia, where we will need to have a free flow of goods and
services, and to not have the Income disparities say, between coastal
provinces of China, and the Inland provinces of Chinas* disparity of
opportunities of the kind you see in Africa and these other continents. All
of this leads to a more harmonious political and strategic environment.
These are the issues at stake, and I think that's why people will see the
broader picture.
J: Would you be hoping that the language In the final communique will
sound somewhat less ambiguous than what we have been led to believe It
Is at the moment?
PM: There's only one line that you need to really watch and that Is whether It
says 2010 for the developed countries, and 2020 for developing
countries. That's the key bit.
J: Not the farm sector considerations?
PM: There's not going to be I would be -surprised now after the work we have
done and others that there are going to be exclusions for particular
sectors.
J: And you are confident those dates will specifically be In that
communique? Not just a reiteration
PM: That's what I'm here for to bang those nails Into the wall. Or to do my
best to do it.
J: Hasn't it already been agreed that those dates will be In it?
PM: What Is agreed is what walks out of the final meeting that's what's
agreed. I
J: Yesterday before you left you were predicting that the strike would be
wrapped up and all over by midday of course, it wasn't. I was just
wondering if during the nature of your discussions earlier this morning
there were principles involved In this dispute are you prepared today to
put any timetable on when you think it will be resolved?
PM: No. But I had an indication then from the ACTU and the company that It
would be near to resolution by the middle of yesterday a written
indication. So, the fact that we-are still making progress, and around the
same points, augers pretty well for it.
J: You have had a written indication from both sides?
PM: Indeed.
J: How hard will it be to bang those nails into the wall just how hard?
PM: Again, the situation politics of meetings is what we have all spent our lives
being involved In, and so has everybody else there. And so it Is a matter
of keeping. the key elements of the Bogor -Declaration, and the prospects
it holds for everybody under close and serious attention. And I think if
that happens if that happens we will get the result we want.
J: Mr Keating, there seems to be an encouraging sign out of the US today in
terms of potential cutbacks In their farm subsidy programs. What
Implication will that have for us?
PM: That will have very positive Implications for us, I think. I think we are
starting to see an understanding that in the end, If the US wants to
subsidise sectors from its central budget, In the end the whole of the USeconomy
will be weaker, and it won't have the increments to growth and
to product and to employment that it would otherwise have. It is,
essentially, taking the trade liberalisation story further by taking some of
these subsidies down.
J: Given that you said earlier that you had some written Indication yesterday
an undertaking from the parties that you believed it would be settled
yesterday, I was just wondering if in the light that it wasn't, could you tell
us whom you believed reneged on that deal that you ? 7
PM: It's not a matter of reneging, It's a matter of clearing of details, but details
have become more amplified. I think that is what's happened.
J: So, basically, did you have to spend the morning trying to get them back
to those four principles is that what you are saying?
PM: Well, the four principles are the key issues.
J: Is that what you had the agreement on?
PM: yes.
J: An agreement from the ACTU, the CRA, that that would be what they are
negotiating around?
PM: We had an agreement between the parties, which was then put In writing,
and which was then communicated between the two of them with an
Indication from both of them that certainly from the company that It had
to go and sort some of the details out. But hopefully then they could clear
their way midday yesterday, or thereabouts.
J: So what went wrong?
PM: I think what happened was when you throw a matter like this inside a big
industrial company which has been fighting an Issue like this for 2 or 3
years, you know, all their fine-print people come out of the woodwork.
J: So it was on the company's side that the problem was struck?
PMV: In terms of progressing it to that point yesterday, I think yes, yet it may
have been In the afternoon the ACTU then In other matters as well -I
don't know.
J: So the best way to describe it is that we have an agreement In principle
for an end to this dispute?
PM: There is an agreement In principle around these four points they need to
be confirmed as to what some of the text to the points mean.
J: Does the legislative remedy. ( inaudible)...?
PM: No. Itfs not relevant to that.
J: Have you found it at all frustrating being preoccupied with International
events in the last 3 weeks, and you haven't been involved in the domestic
scene?
PM: No. I mean, I haven't been away for that long I have been in and out of
the country. Let me tell you this bringing back to Australia a set of trade
arrangements for the next half century are the antithesis of frustration
the absolute antithesis of frustration.
J: Do you think there just needs to be some goodwill on both sides of this
dispute to solve this?
PM; Look, it's been fought out site by site for over 3 years. This has been a
particularly drawn out and intractable matter, and you know, like all
matters of weight and substance like this, where issues are hotly debated
and disputed, it will take some goodwill to get to the point of settlement.
J: Prime Minister, I heard what you said before, but there seems to be a
sense that If this was a G7 Summit, that Bill Clinton would be here come
hell or high water.
PM: No. I think that the Presidenits commitment to East Asia is quite a
profound one, and the concept of an Asian Pacific grouping is a profound
one, and I think he would have major reservations and misgivings about
not being here. And I say " major", underlined, because he was Involved
with this from Seattle from the first meeting in Seattle through Bogor,
and remember, he came to Indonesia two days after the Congressional
drubbing the Democratic Party took in the United States. And I think he
would have come here had it not been for a paramount fiscal crisis.
J: With things obviously so difficult ( inaudible) could his absence make
the difference between getting ( inaudible) ? 7
PM: Well, I hope not. I think Vice-President Gore Is coming in his place, so
the US will be represented.
J: Are you running a bit of a lone race in trying to hammer home the things
that you want?
PM: We have made our presence felt I hope in these negotiations. I certainly
had many opportunities of discussing now with Prime Minister Murayama
with my visit here where I spent a lot of time on this subject, on the details
of this subject with Ministers Hashimoto and Kono, and twice when they
had the return visit to Australia about two months ago. And subsequently,
of course;, we have had discussions with the Diet Members' League
Agriculture Committee, and we have had, of course, visits here by Bob
McMullan, Minister for Trade, and the Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans,
and they have been involved In negotiations. And last week I also sent
back with my own annotations, changes in the Declaration which the
Japanese Foreign Ministry communicated to us yesterday that the bulk of
which were included in the Draft. So, you know, we have been in there
trying.
J: Prime Minister, do you have any comment on the Senate's consideration
of holding up appropriations at all?
PM: No I'm just not up with that, I'm not sure where that matter Is.
PM: Prime Minister, Senator Evans Indicated yesterday that a deal had
virtually been stitched up how much more is left for the Leaders to do on
Sunday?
PM: Well, again, this we believed was the case exactly at the beginning of the
Bogor meeting, and then we found that a couple of countries were not
completely happy with some of the text. I mean, I think we are going to go
In here in a fairly good position, but It will be a matter of keeping It there.
J: How would you characterise the mood last time there was a sense of
euphoria that reached this landmark decision, the mood this time, Is It a
case of. ( inaudible)...?
PM: Well, last time it was.. let's just retrace where we have been. APEC; was
a mini-OECD body, which met at Ministerial level from Its Inception you
show me your economic statistics, and I'll show you mine. We have
turned APEC now into a Head of Government body a complete change
to get the authority of Leaders to be brought to bear to decisions and
then met as a group, decided to meet a second time, and at the second
time take on the ambitious project of open trade In the Pacific in goods
and services by these certain time-frames. That was the big leap. Here
Is [ about] putting flesh on the boneas of that structure that is, putting an
Action Agenda down. And then, at the following meeting In The
Philippines, will be about national country offers, and * the longer this
process goes, the more likely it will be bureaucratised, and the less likely
it will be the major input of the Leaders. But it will still need their authority
to guide it. We're in that second stage with this one.
J: Mr Keating, President Kim said that he would like to see APEC remain a
consultative body rather than a negotiating body is that a sort of sign
that they are backtracking on this?
PM: People have all sorts of different expressions for these things and again,
part of the translation Is part of the problem in all this. I think President
Kim has been a very strong supporter of APEC, and he knows that to
keep. I mean, on of the great challenges for Australia, for the United
States, Korea, Japan, is how we accommodate the burgeoning Chinese
economy in the Asia Pacific. How we will let it come into the Asia Pacific
economies, and how we resource it properly. And I think President Kim
knows as well that it can only happen with this sort of forethought, this
sort of structure. I think we might make this the last, okay?
J; You said a couple of countries weren't particularly happy can you tell us
which countries?
PM: Oh well, in a communique of this depth, there would be at some point
none of them would be happy. It's a matter of what is distilled from their
real motivations in this, what they're prepared to trade away. I mean, the
essence of a negotiation is trading that which is not paramount to you to
keep that which is. I mean, I think this is what is of its essence a
negotiation around those principles. Thank you.
ends.